- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
2 may be the only even prime - that is it’s the only prime divisible by 2 - but 3 is the only prime divisible by 3 and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5, so I fail to see how this is unique.
Exactly, “even” litterally means divisible by 2. We could easily come up with a term for divisible by 3 or 5. Maybe there even is one. So yeah 2 is nothing special.
“Threven” has a nice ring to it now that I think of it.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=BRQLhjytJmY&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Gtfo! 😅
Even vs odd numbers are not as important as we think they are. We could do the same to any other prime number. 2 is the only even prime (meaning it is divisible by 2) 3 is the only number divisible by 3. 5 is the only prime divisible by 5. When you think about the definition of prime numbers, this is a trivial conclusion.
Tldr: be mindful of your conventions.
Yes, but not really.
With 2, the natural numbers divide into equal halves. One of which we call odd and the other even. And we use this property a lot in math.
If you do it with 3, then one group is going to be a third and the other two thirds (ignore that both sets are infinite, you may assume a continuous finite subset of the natural numbers for this argument).
And this imbalance only gets worse with bigger primes.
So yes, 2 is special. It is the first and smallest prime and it is the number that primarily underlies concepts such as balance, symmetry, duplication and equality.
But why would you divide the numbers to two sets? It is reasonable for when considering 2, but if you really want to generalize, for 3 you’d need to divide the numbers to three sets. One that divide by 3, one that has remainder of 1 and one that has remainder of 2. This way you have 3 symmetric sets of numbers and you can give them special names and find their special properties and assign importance to them. This can also be done for 5 with 5 symmetric sets, 7, 11, and any other prime number.
Not sure about how relevant this in reality, but when it comes to alternating series, this might be relevant. For example the Fourier series expansion of cosine and other trig function?
But then it is more natural to use the complex version of the Fourier series, which has a neat symmetric notation
True, but normally, you’d introduce trig functions before complex numbers. Anyhow: I appreciate the meme and the complete over the top discussion about it :D
Complex numbers ftw
Then you have one set that contains multiples of 3 and two sets that do not, so it is not symmetric.
You’d have one set that are multiples of 3, one set that are multiples of 3 plus 1, and one stat that are multiples of 3 minus 1 (or plus 2)
How do you people even math.
You might as well use a composite number if you want to create useless sets of numbers.
I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but you’re describing cyclical groups
Not intentionally, but yes group rise in many places unexpectedly. That’s why they’re so neat
2 is a prime though isn’t it
Yes, but it’s the only even one. Making him the odd man out
It is but if feels wrong
It pretends to be prime and we all go along with it to avoid hurting its feeling.
I don’t get it, why does adding a hand move to the next prime?
🚨 NERD ALERT🚨
Go define a vector space, nerd.
Go compute the p value of you being cool
Go integrate f(x)= 1/x on the domain (-1,1)
This is meme-ville population: me
Take a hike.
Spoiler: p < 0.05
-
let V be you mom’s vagina, a vector space over the field of pubes. We define my d as a vector such that d is in V. Thus my dick is in your mom’s vagina.
-
In this vector space p values are not defined, but I can assure you that my pp is > 9000.
-
The integral of f(x)=1/x from -1 to 1 does not converge, just like how your father is never coming back from buying milk. The principal value of that integral tho is 0, just like the amount of hugs you got as a kid.
-
math is cool, you just too stupid to get it.
I ain’t reading all that. Classic nerd L
-
what why i’m serious i don’t get why the hands decrement the numbers
I’m picking on you because you’re looking for patterns where there are none. It’s a common meme format, and it just so happens that op wrote it like that.
Was trying for absurd. Didn’t mean to offend
what I don’t get is what the meme format’s supposed to mean, I can’t even find the name of it online
ohhhh so they’re power rangers, thanks
Pretty sure that when we plug in a correction factor for the relative age of the Fediverse userbase, “today’s lucky 10,000” becomes more like “today’s lucky 10 million”
I kinda wish it was calculated for the world instead of the US though
It’s just the way the power rangers combined their forces
2 is the prime supreme
@WolfhoundRO @HiddenLayer5, and 73 the one of Sheldon Cooper.
Two is the oddest prime of them all.
Oh yeah? What about 0? And 1?
They’re not prime. By definition primes have two prime factors. 1 and the number itself. 1 is divisible only by 1. 0 has no prime factors.
Commonly primes are defined as natural numbers greater than 1 that have only trivial divisors. Your definition kinda works, but 1 can be infinitely many prime factors since every number has 1^n with n ∈ ℕ as a prime factor. And your definition is kinda misleading when generalising primes.
Isn’t 1^n just 1? As in not a new number. I’d argue that 1*1==1*1*1. They’re not some subtly different ones. I agree that the concept of primes only becomes useful for natural numbers >1.
How is my definition misleading?It is no new number, though you can add infinitely many ones to the prime factorisation if you want to. In general we don’t append 1 to the prime factorisation because it is trivial.
In commutative Algebra, a unitary commutative ring can have multiple units (in the multiplicative group of the reals only 1 is a unit, x*1=x, in this ring you have several “ones”). There are elemrnts in these rings which we call prime, because their prime factorisation only contains trivial prime factors, but of course all units of said ring are prime factors. Hence it is a bit quirky to define ordinary primes they way you did, it is not about the amount of prime factors, it is about their properties.
Edit: also important to know: (ℝ,×), the multiplicative goup of the reals, is a commutative, unitary ring, which happens to have only one unit, so our ordinary primes are a special case of the general prime elements.
Oof, I remember why I didn’t study math 😅
But thanks for the explanationYeah, higher math is a total brainfuck :D You’re welcome.
I was never able to wrap my head around quaternions.
There is multiple things wrong here.
-
1 is not a prime number because it is a unit and hence by definition excluded from being a prime.
-
You probably don’t mean units but identity elements:
- A unit is an element that has a multiplicative inverse
- An identity element is an element 1 such that 1x =x1 = x for all x in your ring
There are more units in R than just 1, take for example -1(unless your ring has characteristic 2 in which case thi argument not always works; however for the case of real numbers this is not relevant). But there is always just one identity element, so there is at most one “1” in any ring. Indeed suppose you have two identities e,f. Then e = ef = f because e,f both are identities.
-
The property “their prime factorisaton only contains trivial prime factors” is a circular definition as this requires knowledge about “being prime”. A prime (in Z) is normally defined as an irreducible element, i.e. p is a prime number if p is not a unit and p=ab implies that either a or b is a unit (which is exactly the property of only having the factors 1 and p itself (up to a unit)).
-
(R,×) is not a ring (at least not in a way I am aware of) and not even a group (unless you exclude 0).
-
What are those “general prime elements”? Do you mean prime elements in a ring (or irreducible elements?)? Or something completely different?
You’re mostly right, i misremembered some stuff. My phone keyboard or my client were not capable of adding a small + to the R. With general prime elements I meant prime elements in a ring. But regarding 3.: Not all reducible elements are prime nor vice versa.
That’s why I wrote prime number instead of prime element to not add more confusion. I know that in general prime and irreducible are not equivalent.
-
0 has all the factors. Itself and any other number.
Put them in a sieve of Eratosthenes and see what happens.
Spoiler, they aren’t.
Yo what about my man 9
Eyyyyy
7 ate them
